GB to replace England?

[Mathius Hellwege]

On 25/04/2024 at 12:14, Dave T said:

Wouldn't that be a cost for RLWC though? And instead of paying for NZ, they pay for Samoa?

 

On 26/04/2024 at 09:13, sam4731 said:

I'd honestly take one to the Emirates.

 

On 26/04/2024 at 09:26, Archie Gordon said:

This has all the markings of a low risk (sic), low budget effort. The two tests are probably Friday night and Sunday evening of the same weekend.

Emirates or WHL would be lovely.

 

On 03/06/2024 at 09:11, rlno1 said:

https://www.fijitimes.com.fj/fnrl-secures-bid-for-event/

 

Fiji Rugby League scene is set to take center stage this year, as Fiji National Rugby League acting chief executive Don Natabe has unveiled Fiji to host five nations in the upcoming Pacific Championships.

He said it would be held in the Sugar City of Lautoka.

This month-long rugby league festival was scheduled to captivate audiences from late October to November, promising an electrifying display of talent.

Natabe is particularly excited about the prospects of the Fiji Bati and Fiji Bulikula competing in front of their home crowd.

He aims to incorporate Fiji Residents matches into the mix, providing a platform for local talents to shine.

“It will be a busy year, the path is a lot clearer now, our national head coach is looking to work with local coaches to hopefully secure six players from the Vodafone Cup directly into the Fiji Bati and Fiji Bulikula,” said Natabe.

“I’m truly encouraged by the progress and growth of Rugby League in Fiji, we’ve got some outstanding players making their mark, and the pool of young talent is really promising.”

As preparations for the Pacific Championships gather momentum, the anticipation for a grand sporting spectacle in Lautoka continues to build.

 

 

10 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I disagree. In a well delivered international game, I believe the sport will be improved with the addition of GB to the home nations teams.

Exactly as

1. it challenges AUS more if there is one good Irish, Welsh or Scottish player
2. it is more attractive in the SH as they know the RU lions
3. differentiation in the NH from football and RU
4. England is a home counties concept, the traditional power base of the Tories, not exactly a RugbyLeague community whereas the M62corridor had its great times in the times of the Empire and is thus more associated with GB
5. it gives players from the Home Nations another, higher goal
6. it solves the problem of the European Championships as it is accepted than England plays with a B team
7. As long as there is no league play in Scotland and Ireland it is better if they do not qualify for RLWC and let Greece and Serbia take these places in a 16-team-RLWC
8. they will not qualify anyway in a 10teamRLWC

 

[Sports Prophet]

Out of interest, would those against he GB idea be agains this move if alongside a 2025 GB Lions tour, there was also an England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France 5 nations taking place at the same time in Europe?

[17 stone giant]

7 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

would those against the GB idea

Firstly, I need to know what is being proposed regarding GB, before I can decide if I'm for or against the idea.

Is GB returning only for an Ashes tour in 2025, or will it play again in the future? Will it be GB for the next World Cup in 2026. Or when the Kiwis visit in 2027? Or when the Kangaroos visit in 2028?

It's not clear to me what is being proposed.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Out of interest, would those against he GB idea be agains this move if alongside a 2025 GB Lions tour, there was also an England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France 5 nations taking place at the same time in Europe?

That takes us to the early 2000s.

Its quite astounding really that in 2006, GB played a Tri Nations in Oz. At the same time, England, Samoa, Tonga and France played a tournament in Eng/France. In 2006/7 Wales played Scotland and PNG and Lebanon in WC qualifiers. 

Did we ever have it so good? 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

Great Britain V Lancashire, that could work?

?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That takes us to the early 2000s.

Its quite astounding really that in 2006, GB played a Tri Nations in Oz. At the same time, England, Samoa, Tonga and France played a tournament in Eng/France. In 2006/7 Wales played Scotland and PNG and Lebanon in WC qualifiers. 

Did we ever have it so good? 

Would have been better if GB weren't playing at the same time as supposed test matches featuring Welsh and Scottish players eligible for both them and GB. But other than that, international competition was at a high. 

I think the only thing is was better was around 2013.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Would have been better if GB weren't playing at the same time as supposed test matches featuring Welsh and Scottish players eligible for both them and GB. But other than that, international competition was at a high. 

I think the only thing is was better was around 2013.

Yeah agreed, and we did have some clashes there, but in terms of games staged, and even ambition, it was very different to now. We really should have been growing on those years, not starting again. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

That takes us to the early 2000s.

Its quite astounding really that in 2006, GB played a Tri Nations in Oz. At the same time, England, Samoa, Tonga and France played a tournament in Eng/France. In 2006/7 Wales played Scotland and PNG and Lebanon in WC qualifiers. 

Did we ever have it so good? 

Those early 00s GB test matches and tri nations series were epic - bar the 2004 final that is.

[Gomersall]

5 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Out of interest, would those against he GB idea be agains this move if alongside a 2025 GB Lions tour, there was also an England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France 5 nations taking place at the same time in Europe?

I expect most would see that the England team, at least, would be shorn of all of their best players and give it a swerve. 

[crashmon]

13 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I expect most would see that the England team, at least, would be shorn of all of their best players and give it a swerve. 

the england tesm would still put 50+ on all the other teams even with a 4th or 5th string apart from perhaps France who they would also beat but by probably 2 scores

Edited July 17, 2024 by crashmon

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Gomersall said:

I expect most would see that the England team, at least, would be shorn of all of their best players and give it a swerve. 

Yes they did in the 2000's. They were very much seen as 2nd rate international events. 

That's not necessarily to say they don't have a place, but there needs to be an acceptance that we are talking low-thousands attending these events, and more than likely a cost to the sport. 

[Damien]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Out of interest, would those against he GB idea be agains this move if alongside a 2025 GB Lions tour, there was also an England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France 5 nations taking place at the same time in Europe?

That's no different than England touring and England A playing in such a tournament. People would think of it as the same too.

[Sports Prophet]

9 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Firstly, I need to know what is being proposed regarding GB, before I can decide if I'm for or against the idea.

Is GB returning only for an Ashes tour in 2025, or will it play again in the future? Will it be GB for the next World Cup in 2026. Or when the Kiwis visit in 2027? Or when the Kangaroos visit in 2028?

It's not clear to me what is being proposed.

Very good question. I was thinking GB may appear once every WC cycle for a tour and not feature in the WC.

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

That takes us to the early 2000s.

Its quite astounding really that in 2006, GB played a Tri Nations in Oz. At the same time, England, Samoa, Tonga and France played a tournament in Eng/France. In 2006/7 Wales played Scotland and PNG and Lebanon in WC qualifiers. 

Did we ever have it so good? 

 

4 hours ago, Gomersall said:

I expect most would see that the England team, at least, would be shorn of all of their best players and give it a swerve. 

 

4 hours ago, crashmon said:

the england tesm would still put 50+ on all the other teams even with a 4th or 5th string apart from perhaps France who they would also beat but by probably 2 scores

 

2 hours ago, Damien said:

That's no different than England touring and England A playing in such a tournament. People would think of it as the same too.

This is where we find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place… with dedicated fans included.

The overwhelming feedback in this forum is that there isn’t enough international RL. Not enough games for England. Not enough quality opponents for England. A suggestion here to hold a high quality tour featuring the best that GB can muster (I know, I know, it’s an England team… for now) and then go on to arrange far more appropriate fixtures for Welsh, Scots, Irish and French, whilst still featuring a strong England team and no-one wants a bar of it.

Like @Dave T says above, we would need to be comfortable that these matches would get crowds in the low thousands, but I doubt that would be any different if it featured England or England A (not that I would call them England A ever).

[RP London]

On 17/07/2024 at 02:08, Sports Prophet said:

I disagree. In a well delivered international game, I believe the sport will be improved with the addition of GB to the home nations teams.

The real problem with all of this is the rose tinted glasses.. When it happened last time things were seen as going ok in Ireland and Scotland becuase players declared for them knowing that it didnt stop them being picked for GB when in effect nothing was changing or improving on the ground in those countries. The only country doing ok was Wales and we missed the boat there in 1995-9.. but that needed money to solve as union went pro. GB and the "declare for your ancestral nation" papered over the cracks and IMHO it would do the same again. 

There are positives to having GB as has been said about players playing and having more "internationals" between the nations and with more players feeling prepared to put their hands up and keep them up for those nations becuase GB exist as the top international team. That is except, of course, what about the world cup do we split or not? if we split we are back to players wanting to play for England becuase the chance of winning the world cup is higher therefore this part of the argument is utterly null and void. However, if we stay as GB and these home nations remain stronger that gives "internationals" but they will lack atmosphere and draw for the crowd, matches in Ireland and Scotland will still be poorly supported etc because the game just isnt growing there without massive, massive investment and that will still not come GB or not. 

Your key point is "well delivered international game" and at the moment we just have to accept it isnt and wont be for a while.. Bring GB back or dont, as many others say, it'll make little difference it may paper over cracks but it isnt fixing the issue. What it could do though is lead to more and more muddled thinking where the audience just think "i have no idea what is going on or who we are" and they just walk away from the international game, something happening already with the lack of calendar etc. 

So to cut to the chase from a rambling post... the KEY is not GB or England is the "well delivered international game" across the board.. then lets worry about what badge we put on the shirt IMHO

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Very good question. I was thinking GB may appear once every WC cycle for a tour and not feature in the WC.

 

 

 

This is where we find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place… with dedicated fans included.

The overwhelming feedback in this forum is that there isn’t enough international RL. Not enough games for England. Not enough quality opponents for England. A suggestion here to hold a high quality tour featuring the best that GB can muster (I know, I know, it’s an England team… for now) and then go on to arrange far more appropriate fixtures for Welsh, Scots, Irish and French, whilst still featuring a strong England team and no-one wants a bar of it.

Like @Dave T says above, we would need to be comfortable that these matches would get crowds in the low thousands, but I doubt that would be any different if it featured England or England A (not that I would call them England A ever).

Sorry posted my other post before continuing reading. I've quoted this but could have picked a few. including @17 stone giant If there is a proper plan behind it then we have more to make a decision on. I am not sure I like it being used as an equivalent to the RU lions as I am not sure that actually does anything to help.. Its a pinnacle but its going to be just a different shirt on the same team for an awfully long time as the development underneath just isnt happening. 

IF it were to go back to how it was early 2000s with one exception I wouldnt be against it. England A vs other nations sort of worked and you can live with the crowds if you use it also as a tool to be taken to expansion areas where they can get ok crowds and no one is expecting massive crowds because they are expansion areas. I remember seeing England A a few times in london in the 2000s. 

 

all in all though, it has to be a proper plan for the game and how it will work, not just a one off shirt change for a tour which would be utterly pointless. 

Edited July 18, 2024 by RP London

[corkonian77]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Sorry posted my other post before continuing reading. I've quoted this but could have picked a few. including @17 stone giant If there is a proper plan behind it then we have more to make a decision on. I am not sure I like it being used as an equivalent to the RU lions as I am not sure that actually does anything to help.. Its a pinnacle but its going to be just a different shirt on the same team for an awfully long time as the development underneath just isnt happening. 

IF it were to go back to how it was early 2000s with one exception I wouldnt be against it. England A vs other nations sort of worked and you can live with the crowds if you use it also as a tool to be taken to expansion areas where they can get ok crowds and no one is expecting massive crowds because they are expansion areas. I remember seeing England A a few times in london in the 2000s. 

 

all in all though, it has to be a proper plan for the game and how it will work, not just a one off shirt change for a tour which would be utterly pointless. 

It certainly  isn't  happening  in Ireland.

The budget  just isn't there.  They would  at a minimum  need 6 development  officers,a fleet of vans, training equipment and rent for multiple  venues. 

Sports like Rugby  Union in Ireland  and Football  had the benefit  of returning  students  from England and Scotland,  Civil Servants and Army Officers  to start up the sports in Ireland all unpaid. The Munster  Football  Association  had many British  Army Officers  on its board prior to the creation  of Irish  Free State ( Modern  Republic  of Ireland). 

Maybe  in the future returning  Irish migrants  from  Australia  may return and plant clubs. 

[Dr Tim Whatley]

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes they did in the 2000's. They were very much seen as 2nd rate international events. 

That's not necessarily to say they don't have a place, but there needs to be an acceptance that we are talking low-thousands attending these events, and more than likely a cost to the sport. 

A couple of thousand at The Stoop for England v Tonga felt...alright? Still a decent occasion and something for fans to follow in person while the best players were out in Australia.

As you say though - those were really heady days compared to the clown show we have now

[Click]

52 minutes ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

A couple of thousand at The Stoop for England v Tonga felt...alright? Still a decent occasion and something for fans to follow in person while the best players were out in Australia.

As you say though - those were really heady days compared to the clown show we have now

I was at the Stoop for that game, was a fun afternoon!

[RP London]

2 hours ago, corkonian77 said:

It certainly  isn't  happening  in Ireland.

The budget  just isn't there.  They would  at a minimum  need 6 development  officers,a fleet of vans, training equipment and rent for multiple  venues. 

Sports like Rugby  Union in Ireland  and Football  had the benefit  of returning  students  from England and Scotland,  Civil Servants and Army Officers  to start up the sports in Ireland all unpaid. The Munster  Football  Association  had many British  Army Officers  on its board prior to the creation  of Irish  Free State ( Modern  Republic  of Ireland). 

Maybe  in the future returning  Irish migrants  from  Australia  may return and plant clubs. 

And thats the thing.. all the rest is just fiddling around the edges with names and shirts.. money and investment of time is needed.. the change of name will make little difference on the ground. Only if there is a concerted change in attitude can a difference be made. 

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, RP London said:

And thats the thing.. all the rest is just fiddling around the edges with names and shirts.. money and investment of time is needed.. the change of name will make little difference on the ground. Only if there is a concerted change in attitude can a difference be made. 

In my day job we would absolutely be challenging this kind of proposal with a why, and so what?

Why would we want to make this change? Maybe people would answer that we can tap into a long history and heritage. 

But then that moves us onto so what? Will it lead to bigger crowds, more sponsors, more fans, more players? The answer is clearly no - we have evidence that shows GB has no more interest than England has.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

In my day job we would absolutely be challenging this kind of proposal with a why, and so what?

Why would we want to make this change? Maybe people would answer that we can tap into a long history and heritage. 

But then that moves us onto so what? Will it lead to bigger crowds, more sponsors, more fans, more players? The answer is clearly no - we have evidence that shows GB has no more interest than England has.

I said it previously but I really think for many they really miss an Ashes test against Australia rather than playing as GB as such. 

I remember when the cancelled 2020 Ashes tour was announced and there was real excitement about playing an Ashes series again and at venues like Tottenham. Thats was as England and hardly anyone was saying about playing as GB, people were just thrilled to have the Ashes back.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Damien

[17 stone giant]

13 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Very good question. I was thinking GB may appear once every WC cycle for a tour and not feature in the WC.

What would that 'tour' be? Next year it's an Ashes tour, but would it always be that? Are we going to have those every four years guaranteed? Plus that would mean GB playing for the Ashes in Australia, but England playing for the Ashes when it's in the UK (e.g. 2028). That makes no sense to me.

And if it's not an Ashes tour, what would GB be doing? A tour against various other teams like in 2019? Or perhaps joining in with the Pacific tournament? Or a Four Nations, if they ever do that again?

I just don't understand what GB is for if we're only playing away and only one year out of four, especially considering the potential difficulties that I mentioned above. To me it just smacks of trying to copy what rugby union has with their Lions, when the ingredients are completely different.

For me it's either bring GB back permanently, including for World Cups, or consign it to history. Swapping between GB and England doesn't work.

 

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Damien said:

I said it previously but I really think for many they really miss an Ashes test against Australia rather than playing as GB as such. 

I remember when the cancelled 2020 Ashes tour was announced and there was real excitement about playing an Ashes series again and at venues like Tottenham. Thats was as England and hardly anyone was saying about playing as GB, people were just thrilled to have the Ashes back.

Yup. I feel we really can't ignore the fact that people have a romanticised view of GB tours too, that just aren't returning. The long tours with loads of midweek games are not returning.

I've just had a look at the 1988 Tour, which was the first one that I watched and when I fell in love with international RL - we played 18 matches - only 6 of them broke 10k. We averaged c9k.

On 1990 we played in PNG and NZ and averaged 5.3k across 15 games.

In 1992 we peaked at an average of 13k, with the majority of that coming from 3 successful tests in Aus.

So as much as these were fun, and I genuinely loved them, particularly the 1992 tour which Sky showed many (if not all) of the games - they weren't that compelling for fans. 

When we think back on these things - we need to be clear on what it was that we enjoyed and are chasing - because I'm not convinced the Lion logo is that important (or can't be achieved as England anyway).

[crashmon]

15 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Very good question. I was thinking GB may appear once every WC cycle for a tour and not feature in the WC.

 

 

 

This is where we find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place… with dedicated fans included.

The overwhelming feedback in this forum is that there isn’t enough international RL. Not enough games for England. Not enough quality opponents for England. A suggestion here to hold a high quality tour featuring the best that GB can muster (I know, I know, it’s an England team… for now) and then go on to arrange far more appropriate fixtures for Welsh, Scots, Irish and French, whilst still featuring a strong England team and no-one wants a bar of it.

Like @Dave T says above, we would need to be comfortable that these matches would get crowds in the low thousands, but I doubt that would be any different if it featured England or England A (not that I would call them England A ever).

So I would pay to see a full strength england beat wales by 90.  I would not pay to see England F beat wales by 40, when the England A team was playing away as a "GB" team when its not a GB team, as its full of England players.

The reason the Union Lions works is that it actually has representives from each country, and they are proper representives, not makeweights.    Until GB is really GB and not just England in another name then I'm not interested.

[Mathius Hellwege]

GB plays RLWC, 4NT and every Tour against AUS and NZ (unsure about the PI) while England plays the NH nations including an European Championship